poly-nikes Reviewer "anne-25" from England was evidently so exercised by what she perceived as shortcomings in this excellent production of "Henry V" that she neglected to listen to the words. In the opening Chorus, we are advised that, since the entire combatants of Agincourt could not be incorporated into the production, we must "into a thousand pieces divide one man." A little further along, the Chorus enjoins us thusly: "O, pardon! since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million." Shakespeare obviously knew something that "anne-25" does not -- it's unfeasible to expect two medieval armies to be incorporated into a humble stage production; therefore, we must use our imaginations, as per, again from the Chorus, "upon your imaginary forces work." Even Olivier's and Branagh's film versions left a lot to be desired in this aspect. Olivier's Agincourt was confusing and brief (although the arrow flights, abetted by Walton's glorious music, were stunning); and Branagh's, although more realistic and bloody (fought in the rain as was the real Agincourt), made us suffer through excruciating and over-used slow motion, a device that never adds to action sequences. And by my count, there were far fewer than sixty thousand French soldiers in either production.So, "anne-25," a little advice -- listen to the Chorus next time, and perhaps you'll enjoy yourself much more.

mhk11 I want to reply to one of the claims made by the 2010 reviewer (who puerilely refers to Shakespeare as "Will"). This reviewer states that the play is presented "with minimal, if any cuts." If the reviewer takes the time to read the play instead of making uninformed pronouncements about it, he or she will discover that numerous cuts have been made in the BBC's production. To be sure, most of the abridgments are pretty well judged, and there are considerably fewer abridgments than in the Olivier and Branagh versions. Nonetheless, the claim that the BBC's production presents the text uncut or nearly uncut is flatly incorrect.As for the production itself, it's quite a good rendering of an uneven play. I agree that David Gwillim is too "weepy" and "whispery", but he performs several of his scenes well (for example, the scene with the tennis balls -- until he starts to throw them -- the scene of the exposure of the traitors, and the scene in which he woos Katherine). His rendering of the magnificent St Crispin's Day speech is very disappointing, but his rendering of the riposte to Montjoy shortly after that speech is excellent. Likewise, although he starts the great "Once more unto the breach" speech quite lamely, he finishes it well. Other members of the cast are generally proficient. In particular, the actors who appear as the French nobles seem to enjoy their roles, and they perform those roles adeptly.

Flash Sheridan I'll start with a correction to another review: Like most or all of the other BBC Shakespeare productions I've watched, this has some minor abridgments, e.g., the haggling about "Heir to France" in V.2. It's nothing like as extreme as the "Good Bits" approach that Branagh took, and indeed leaves in some passages that suggest that even Shakespeare nods, such as Fluellen's nattering about Macedonian and Monmouth rivers immediately after mourning the massacre of the boys.Like most of the other BBC Shakespeare I've watched, it's mostly competent, low-key, and not very dramatic. (After Olivier and Branagh, it was kind of interesting to see a sedate Crispin's Day speech.) There are some outright mistakes in the directing, at least in the light of Branagh. I don't see how anyone, for instance, could ever have directed Nym's leave-taking from Mistress Quickly as casual. But there are bits of Shakespeare here you won't see anywhere else, so it's worth watching, once you've seen Olivier and Branagh.

gerlynga First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury. 3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally... 5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."